I think if you was the person to somehow clone yourself and then implant your brain "pattern/map" into it..... and then the two of you were to stand looking at each other...... yes there would be two identical copies of you, however from your point of view you "exist" as you observe yourself..... when you die but your copy lives on this will be "you" but will be an independent organism that is driven by its own "life force"..... so it cant be "you"

Twins can have weird moments where they sense each other in various ways.... could it be considered your "twin"???

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

(28-08-2012 02:19 PM)bemore Wrote: I think if you was the person to somehow clone yourself and then implant your brain "pattern/map" into it..... and then the two of you were to stand looking at each other...... yes there would be two identical copies of you, however from your point of view you "exist" as you observe yourself..... when you die but your copy lives on this will be "you" but will be an independent organism that is driven by its own "life force"..... so it cant be "you"

Twins can have weird moments where they sense each other in various ways.... could it be considered your "twin"???

"life force"? Surely you jest.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

I don't know why everyone is having such a hard time with this. Let's alter this scenario a tiny bit to make a point here. Instead of having another "You" created AFTER you die, let's have ten "You's" created while you are alive. Why would you hear their thoughts? Why would you feel their pains and pleasures? Etc... The answer is you wouldn't. Why? Because they are not you, and you are not them. Just because you are dead and one of "You" exist does not mean it is you, no more than it is "You" when you both exist.

When you die, there is nothing about "You" left living. You are going to be in eternal darkness--for all we can assume that is. Why the hell is everyone making this difficult?

(27-08-2012 11:32 AM)Carnifex Wrote: Let's suppose that after you die, scientists are somehow able to create a computer simulation of your brain, as it was in your final moments. A simulation with the accuracy down to the atomic level.

Would the simulation actually be you or just a copy?

And if you think it would be a copy; why would it just be a copy?

I think some definitions are needed for the question to be concretely answerable. What are you referring to specifically by you, die, "computer simulation," "down to the atomic level," accuracy, "actually be you," "just a copy?", etc.?

The main term I have problems with here, though, is 'you'. Usually, when I think of my own consciousness, I simply see it as a byproduct of the biological-chemical-electrical machine that is my mind. If you're talking about making a copy of your brain down to the atomic level, are you including electrical states of these atoms? The states of the pathways between cells relaying current input? The sensory input currently being converted to electrical/chemical input? If you're including all pieces of information possible, I think the clone/hologram/teleported being/whatever you're referring to here by "computer simulation" would be indistinguishable from your own consciousness qualitatively, and so long as the original mind dies, the second would be identical numerically, also.

However, if you're not talking about copying down to the electrical states, the little I know of neurology says that much of what makes up your consciousness would be lost, as the process of memory in the short term, especially, is dependent on electrical impulses. Analogously, think of a computer. The computer's Random Access Memory (RAM) holds all the short term calculating going on in the machine. Think of this as the short term memory/working memory of the computer, what I assume our consciousness is composed from/by.

When the machine powers off (dies), it loses this data. When it's powered back on (attempted copying), this working memory has to be reinitialized according to what's stored in the Hard Drive (HDD). Think of the HDD as the long term memory/neuronal network not dependent on constant electrical updating...the things that are hardwired, so to speak. For the computer's RAM, when values are fiddled with to even a minor degree, the machine no longer functions properly. In the analogy of consciousness I would guess, depending on the amount of error, that the copy/clone/sim/model whatever would have functional/mental issues inherent in the imperfection of the process. At minimum, the sim would have a different current consciousness, qualitatively. Assuming the process is perfect, however, like I said earlier, the copy would be indistinguishable from the original numerically and qualitatively, making it identical and for all intents and purposes, "you," in my opinion.

The question I think you're really trying to ask here, though, is, "Is there a unique, personal essence that makes up who we are as an individual that can't be reconstituted or duplicated through physical manipulation/copying/cloning/etc.?" Just as a thought experiment, assuming we could perfectly replicate ourselves down to a quark level, current state and everything, we would by definition be qualitatively identical. The copy would have to have all the same qualities as the original, as this is in the definition. Here, if we assert some sort of non-physical entity that comprises "you," problems arise. Up until this point, there is no problem in saying that all these beings are "you," because they're only not "you" numerically. Original=copy 1=copy 2=...=copy n. However, when you assert the idea that there is a "you," that is non-physical, essential, etc., you cease to abide by what is evidenced by reality, and breach into metaphysics, where anything goes.

So, if you believe in A) a "you" that's non physical, copying will result in a qualitatively distinct, numerically distinct "you." If you believe in B) a "you" that's purely physical, it would seem when copied there would be 2 numerically and qualitatively identical "you(s)".

For A), it seems that a copy would not be "you," because that non-physical aspect wouldn't be copied. For B), it seems it would be "you," because the copies are 100% qualitatively and numerically identical. The only differences would come about in the moment the simulation is created, when using your computer simulation/model concept the original parts are recreated in a new location. This is consistent because this happens all the time. Our consciousness doesn't differentiate between the "me" of right now, and the "me" at age five, though a lot of physical descriptors have changed. In the copying scenario, I see no reason this same logic wouldn't be sufficient for the new consciousness, beyond maybe perceiving a "jump" in space/time.

(28-08-2012 03:16 PM)NotSoVacuous Wrote: I don't know why everyone is having such a hard time with this. Let's alter this scenario a tiny bit to make a point here. Instead of having another "You" created AFTER you die, let's have ten "You's" created while you are alive. Why would you hear their thoughts? Why would you feel their pains and pleasures? Etc... The answer is you wouldn't. Why? Because they are not you, and you are not them. Just because you are dead and one of "You" exist does not mean it is you, no more than it is "You" when you both exist.

When you die, there is nothing about "You" left living. You are going to be in eternal darkness--for all we can assume that is. Why the hell is everyone making this difficult?

I also agree there's no need to overcomplicate at the root level. But, again, the definition of "you" is vague. I think you're referring to awareness. I think OP is talking about numerical/qualitative identity.

(28-08-2012 02:19 PM)bemore Wrote: I think if you was the person to somehow clone yourself and then implant your brain "pattern/map" into it..... and then the two of you were to stand looking at each other...... yes there would be two identical copies of you, however from your point of view you "exist" as you observe yourself..... when you die but your copy lives on this will be "you" but will be an independent organism that is driven by its own "life force"..... so it cant be "you"

Twins can have weird moments where they sense each other in various ways.... could it be considered your "twin"???

"life force"? Surely you jest.

Nervous system.... consciousness..... existence..... whatever term you wish to apply

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.